Search

Objective This study compared traumatic brain injury (TBI) outcomes from 2 cohorts: the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems (TBIMS) in the United States and Longitudinal Head Injury Outcome Study conducted in Victoria, Australia, by the Monash Epworth Rehabilitation Research Centre (MERRC). Design Cohort study with 1- and 2-year follow-up. Setting Acute trauma care and inpatient rehabilitation with follow-up. Participants Patients (N=1056) with moderate-severe TBI admitted in 2000-2012 to inpatient rehabilitation after motor vehicle–related collisions, who completed follow-up, were matched using 1:2 matching algorithm based on age at injury, days of posttraumatic amnesia, and years education, resulting in groups of 352 (MERRC) and 704 patients (TBIMS). Intervention The cohorts had received acute trauma care and inpatient rehabilitation for a median 38 (MERRC) or 33 days (TBIMS). The MERRC group also had routine access to community-based support and rehabilitation for return to work or school, attendant care, and home help as justified, funded by an accident compensation system, whereas the TBIMS cohort had variable access to these services. Main Outcome Measures Outcomes were assessed 1 and 2 years post injury in terms of employment, living situation, marital status, and Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOS-E) scores. Results At 2 years post injury, MERRC participants were more likely to be competitively employed. At both 1 and 2 years post injury, MERRC participants were more likely to be married and living independently. On GOS-E, the TBIMS group had higher percentages of patients in Lower Severe Disability/Vegetative State and Upper Good Recovery than MERRC participants, whereas the MERRC cohort had higher percentages of Lower Moderate Disability than TBIMS. Conclusions Findings may suggest that routine provision of community-based supports could confer benefits for long-term TBI outcomes. Further studies documenting rehabilitation services are needed to explore this.

A special supplement to the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in 2007 reported selected findings of research from the first 13 years of the Burn Model System (BMS) centers and Database Coordinating Center. This special supplement is the second such effort and reports on the growth of the BMS National Longitudinal Database since that time and select new research findings from the BMS centers.

Objective Common data elements (CDEs) promote data sharing, standardization, and uniform data collection, which facilitate meta-analyses and comparisons of studies. Currently, there is no set of CDEs for all trauma populations, but their creation would allow researchers to leverage existing databases to maximize research on trauma outcomes. The purpose of this study is to assess the extent of common data collection among 5 trauma databases. Design The data dictionaries of 5 trauma databases were examined to determine the extent of common data collection. Databases included 2 acute care databases (American Burn Association's National Burn Data Standard and American College of Surgeons' National Trauma Data Standard) and 3 longitudinal trauma databases (Burn, Traumatic Brain Injury, Spinal Cord Injury Model System National Databases). Data elements and data values were compared across the databases. Quantitative and qualitative variations in the data were identified to highlight meaningful differences between datasets. Setting N/A. Participants N/A. Interventions N/A. Main Outcome Measures N/A. Results Of the 30 data elements examined, 14 (47%) were present in all 5 databases. Another 9 (30%) elements were present in 4 of the 5 databases. The number of elements present in each database ranged from 23 (77%) to 26 (86%). There were inconsistencies in the data values across the databases. Twelve of the 14 data elements present in all 5 databases exhibited differences in data values. Conclusions This study demonstrates inconsistencies in the documentation of data elements in 5 common trauma databases. These discrepancies are a barrier to database harmonization and to maximizing the use of these databases through linking, pooling, and comparing data. A collaborative effort is required to develop a standardized set of elements for trauma research.

In civilian, military, and veteran populations, there is increased recognition of the interrelationship between traumatic brain injury (TBI) and some psychological health (PH) disorders and the need to better understand the relationships by integrating research for these topics. The use of different measures to assess similar study variables and/or assess outcomes may limit important advances in PH and TBI research. Without a set of common data elements (CDEs; to include variable definitions and recommended measures for the purpose of this discussion), comparison of findings across studies is challenging. The federal agencies involved in PH and TBI research, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Defense Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury, and Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center, therefore cosponsored a scientific initiative to develop CDEs for PH and TBI research. Scientific experts were invited to participate in 1 of 8 working groups to develop recommendations for specific topic-driven CDEs. Draft recommendations were presented and discussed in the workshop "Advancing Integrated Research in Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury: Common Data Elements (CDE)" held on March 23-24, 2009, in Silver Spring, MD. The overall process leading to the workshop and subsequent recommendations by the working groups are presented in this article. Topic-driven recommendations for CDEs are presented in individual reports in this edition.

Clinical, efficacy, and validity issues pertaining to the use of computerized IQ testing are addressed by comparing computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs) of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — Revised and reports written by a clinical psychologist. A group of 33 experienced clinicians who were blind to report authorship compared the reports. Overall, they rated the CBTIs significantly higher than the clinician-written reports. Specifically, results indicated that the CBTI for one child was more thorough in addressing the important features and provided a wider range of interpretations and recommendations. The CBTI for a second child was also judged to provide a wider range of recommendations. These findings are discussed in terms of the strengths and limitations of CBTIs and clinician-written reports, and the contribution that CBTIs can make to psychological testing.